A few weeks before being announced as Jean Paul Gaultier‘s new creative director, Duran Lantink was awarded the Woolmark Prize 2025. The whimsical and talented Dutch designer had applied his expertise and vision of disproportionately swollen volumes to a wool creation. Each year, this event organized by The Woolmark Company – the representative body of the Australian wool industry – rewards contemporary design, with an endowment of 300,000 Australian dollars (around 172,000 euros). It’s also an opportunity to promote the properties of this natural fiber, at the heart of a broader commitment.

In addition to its promotional activities in the premium and luxury fashion sectors, The Woolmark Company is also working to protect an entire industry, which provides a livelihood for many family farms across the continent. This involves applied research projects, such as the recent development of its “denim lab”, as well as a major effort to organize the industry and raise its profile.

In this respect, assessing the CSR impact of the material is a major challenge. Damien Pommeret, the organization’s representative in Western Europe, reviews the initiatives undertaken by The Woolmark Company and its innovation center. In particular, he details its involvement in the ‘Make the Label Count’ initiative, launched in 2021 with other players in the textile sector. As Europe moves forward with the validation of new environmental assessment tools – in particular the PEF (Product Environmental Footprint) and the French method – this approach is taking on strategic weight today.

FashionNetwork.com: After years of consultation, Europe has just validated advances in methodologies for assessing the environmental cost of textiles. However, with certain approaches, the calculation could favor materials derived from the petrochemical industry to the detriment of natural materials. Was this an issue for you?

Damien Pommeret: We started sounding the alarm over three years ago. We took part in the creation of ‘Make the Label Count‘ to defend the advantages of using renewable and biodegradable fibers and to highlight the harmful effects of microplastic pollution. At first, we were pretty much alone, but the cotton and other natural materials sectors realized that there were aligned messages. Above all, there was a realization that we were small in comparison with other lobbies.

FNW: And now?

DP: Natural materials are starting to connect. Initially, brands and supply chains saw this as a pure risk, thinking that the issues were different. The collaborative aspect was complex. Especially as working on the technical details requires a lot of time and dedicated people. But now it’s more concrete. The fact that we created “Make the LabelCount”, which wasn’t linked to a specific material, allows us to get involved. The cotton industry contributes funds. The 64-member coalition is gaining in weight with the authorities, particularly in Europe.

FNW: In concrete terms, what does this mean for an industry like wool, represented by Woolmark?

DP: It already carries weight with the Australian government and the wool industry. To change approaches, we have to share data with the French government. This data had not been consolidated for sharing and gives very detailed information on the Australian wool industry. We had to overcome legal and political fears about sharing it with Ecobalyse. But it’s up to the industries to share their data. Because in reality, the French government will never be able to know the progress made on coffee, avocados or natural textiles when it comes to establishing its results.

FNW: But how important is this sharing of data?

DP: It’s very important. In fact, petroleum-based materials have more data than natural materials, which adds value to the results in assessment systems. Strategic impact assessment tools were created to evaluate products produced by industries using calibrated resources. So it’s not adapted to agriculture and livestock farming, even if we’re trying to adapt it… The difficulty is that there are lots of different types of operation. We have to create the measurement tools and collect the data, which is much more complex. With Woolmark, we invest in these tools and follow technologies developed by start-ups to improve the situation. Because the biggest impact is on the farms. But that’s also where all the potential lies in protecting water resources and biodiversity.

FNW: In concrete terms, has this sharing of information improved the ratings of wool products via Ecobalyse?

DP: Yes, clearly. As they didn’t have any data, they worked with the information they did have: an impact study on sheep in the United States which served as the basis for calculating all wool products. But for textiles, 85% of Merino wool comes from Australia. In Australia, sheep farming is extensive, with 6 to 8 animals per hectare in semi-freedom. So the impact is not at all the same. With our data, this reduced the impact in the final results. The challenge now is to finance regular data collection and to go into more detail. Because this commits the sector to improvement and can be promoted to customers.

FNW:Can this be applied to other natural materials?

DP: Each sector can have its own elements. For example, American cotton has all these data. The key point is that it’s not just a matter of collecting data. It has to commit the industry, breeders, farmers and polyester producers to doing better, and consumers to consuming better. Otherwise, it’s pointless transparency. It’s necessarily a political issue. The aim is not to point the finger at industries and see people lose their jobs. The aim is to have a tool that enables us to optimize, to be more intelligent in manufacturing and consumption.

FNW: Except that, despite the improvement, wool is still not rated as highly as polyester…

DP: Admittedly, even if the result is better, we’re far from having won. For our part, we have to be transparent about the real impact of wool. But then, the criteria will have to include a projection onto a new way of consuming. The life and impact of a product after its manufacture are not the same for a natural product as for those made from petrochemicals. And this is not yet taken into account at European level. It’s a battle that needs to be fought. The other aspect is that we’re going to have to consume less to meet our environmental commitments.

FNW: What do you mean by this?

DP: Let’s be clear: natural materials are not the ones that have the least impact, and are often intended for premium products. We’re not going to sell a 50-euro cotton t-shirt to every Indian. Each fiber has its own purpose. The aim is to be able to use fibers and products for their performance at the right level of consumption. While we obviously need to keep fashion affordable, the problem is volume. There’s a difference between accessible fashion and an industry that’s unbridled on environmental and social issues. We’re going to have to find a way of ensuring that Europe’s affluent classes don’t over-consume low-priced products. Which is the case today.“